by Henry Curtis, Life of the Land
Aina Koa Pono proposed that HELCO buy biodiesel (at a price I estimate) at about $170/barrel and that HECO ratepayers subsidize the price.
The PUC today boldly rejected this proposal (Docket 2011-0005)
Life of the Land applauds the PUC ruling re Aina Koa Pono.
Every energy source has good and bad aspects. They must be weighed against each other. There are good and bad renewables.
In this case the proposal simply did not pencil out, from an economic perspective, from an environmental perspective and from a social perspective.
PUC Ruling stated in part:
As a final matter, the commission is aware of and rejects as unwarranted and without merit the possible perception that by not approving the Biodiesel Supply Contract, the commission is "anti-biofuels" or "anti-renewables."
Indeed, State law, which recognizes the use of cost-effective biofuels as a renewable electrical energy resource, reflects the State's overall policy of reducing its reliance and dependence on fossil fuels.
Nonetheless, in this instance, the commission finds and concludes that the contract price for the AKP-produced biofuel, which the HECO Companies chose to file and retain under confidential seal, is excessive, not cost-effective, and thus, is unreasonable and inconsistent with the public interest.
CB: Aina Koa Pono Contract Rejected